Maynard James Keenan wrote:I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

Maynard James Keenan wrote:I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

Maynard James Keenan wrote:I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

Maynard James Keenan wrote:I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

But they were nominated for Best Album of the Year.

So shouldn't they definitely be nominated for Best New Artist? I'm not really a fan of theirs, so don't think I'm just fighting for them for that reason. It seems to me, though, that if a band's first album is nominated for album of the year, they should also be nominated for best new artist.

Maynard James Keenan wrote:I think the Grammys are nothing more than some gigantic promotional machine for the music industry. They cater to a low intellect and they feed the masses. They don't honor the arts or the artist for what they created. It's the music business celebrating itself. That's basically what it's all about.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

But at the same time, they don't seem to neccesarily acknowledge (spelling?) the artists that sold big. Gnarls Barkley was huge this year and they weren't nominated for best new artist.

But they were nominated for Best Album of the Year.

So shouldn't they definitely be nominated for Best New Artist? I'm not really a fan of theirs, so don't think I'm just fighting for them for that reason. It seems to me, though, that if a band's first album is nominated for album of the year, they should also be nominated for best new artist.

I don't know, logic would say probably. But for Pete's sake Carrie freakin' Underwood won it, which further proves the original quote I posted.